Google mines Frommer’s Travel for social data, then sells the name back

In case you weren't aware of how valuable friends and followers are...

In August 2012, Google purchased the travel publishing brand Frommer's Travel from John Wiley and Sons for $22 million. At the time, the purchase made some sense given Google's trend of acquisitions: Google bought ITA, a popular travel data service, in 2010, and the restaurant rating guide Zagat in 2011. But it was unclear how exactly Frommer's would live on in Google's pantheon.

Last week, Google paradoxically sold the Frommer's title back to the 83-year-old eponymous founder, who said he intended to resume publishing travel information under his name. Price details were not disclosed.

Today, it appears that Google, despite selling the Frommer's name, has retained the brand's social data and is integrating it with what is now called Zagat Travel. “Google is keeping all of the followers that Frommer’s accrued on Twitter, Facebook, FourSquare, Google+, YouTube and Pinterest.” PaidContent writes. “These thousands—or more likely millions—of accounts are valuable because they represent a huge collection of serious travel enthusiasts.”

The move became known when Google changed the name of the Twitter handle @FrommersTravel to @ZagatTravel today, announcing in a tweet, “This account is now @ZagatTravel! Welcome. Stay tuned for info on where to go, where to stay and how to explore around the world.”

A Google spokesperson talking to PaidContent said of the purchase, “we’ve spent the last several months integrating the travel content we acquired from Wiley into Google+ Local and our other Google services. We can confirm that we have returned the Frommer’s brand to its founder and are licensing certain travel content to him.”

Congratulations Google, you've crossed the line from being merely annoying to actually being evil.

Acquiring a company just to take the user data and then sell it's branding back to the original party? That's sick. I expect the users in question were covered by a typical privacy agreement to not resell the data; this is exactly the kind of maneuver that's well within the side of 'evil'.

Well, at least they paid. Doubt the founder is particularly sad about the millions of dollars he obtained.

Quote:

We can confirm that we have returned the Frommer’s brand to its founder and are licensing certain travel content to him.”

Not at all clear that he made a dime when he bought it back and all the accounts were settled. Plus now he's having to pay to license "travel content" from Google. Dollars to donuts, he used to outright own that content.

Well, at least they paid. Doubt the founder is particularly sad about the millions of dollars he obtained.

Quote:

We can confirm that we have returned the Frommer’s brand to its founder and are licensing certain travel content to him.”

Not at all clear that he made a dime when he bought it back and all the accounts were settled. Plus now he's having to pay to license "travel content" from Google. Dollars to donuts, he used to outright own that content.

Google, you nasty.

If Frommer didn't want to sell to Google, he didn't have to. So I assume the original deal was good enough to justify it. Likewise, if he didn't want to license the content back, he could have been satisfied with the cash; therefore, I assume he wanted to license. I'm not seeing how he got screwed here.

Now, the users, who had no say in the matter...that's another story entirely.

I think some people are misreading what the story says. Arthur Frommer is a third party to the original deal between Google and John Wiley & Sons. Arthur Frommer re-enters the picture & assumes control of his namesake brand because of Google's sale.

1) Arthur Frommer starts writing guidebooks in the 1950s.2) Arthur Frommer initially sells the travel guide business to Simon & Schuster in 1977.3) The travel guide business is sold various times — ending up at John Wiley & Sons in 2001.4) Google buys the travel guide business from Wiley in 2012.5) After announcing it would cease publishing print editions of the travel guides, Google sells the name back to its originator (Arthur Frommer) for an undisclosed amount.

Arthur Frommer hasn't owned his namesake travel guide business for about 36 years. It would be akin to Google buying Turner Broadcasting from Time Warner and then selling the name back to Ted Turner (who originally sold his company to Time Warner in 1996).

Some of the previous comments seem to oversimplify what's apparently happening. Also, the headline muddies the situation by merely stating that Google is selling the name back. It may have led many to assume Google is selling the name back to the immediate seller (Wiley) instead of back to the creator (Arthur Frommer).

I know it's easy to knock Google for handling the transaction the way it did. However, selling the name back to the originator to keep the print editions alive is probably one of the better outcomes. Sure, Google could've tried to keep publishing print editions by itself, but what could've happened when the company inevitably realized they weren't cut out for the print publishing business (or that it wasn't one of their core strengths)?

Google could have simply ceased publishing the print editions after reaping the data from the Frommers guides. This seems better.

Well, at least they paid. Doubt the founder is particularly sad about the millions of dollars he obtained.

Quote:

We can confirm that we have returned the Frommer’s brand to its founder and are licensing certain travel content to him.”

Not at all clear that he made a dime when he bought it back and all the accounts were settled. Plus now he's having to pay to license "travel content" from Google. Dollars to donuts, he used to outright own that content.

Google, you nasty.

If Frommer didn't want to sell to Google, he didn't have to. So I assume the original deal was good enough to justify it. Likewise, if he didn't want to license the content back, he could have been satisfied with the cash; therefore, I assume he wanted to license. I'm not seeing how he got screwed here.

Now, the users, who had no say in the matter...that's another story entirely.

According to the linked article Frommer approached Google with a deal to buy his name back, (he was unhappy they wanted discontinue the print editions of the guidebooks). So I'm not really sure how this makes Google evil....

The users can unfollow them on Twitter, FB, etc and subscribe to their emails they may have been getting, (last I knew Google honors unsubscribe requests), if they're upset with the deal, so it's not like they're being forced to deal with Google's new company.

Congratulations Google, you've crossed the line from being merely annoying to actually being evil.

Acquiring a company just to take the user data and then sell it's branding back to the original party? That's sick. I expect the users in question were covered by a typical privacy agreement to not resell the data; this is exactly the kind of maneuver that's well within the side of 'evil'.

Nobody forced the guy to buy back Frommer. If the guy was not getting anything, why would he buy? If both the guy and google got what they wanted, it is just business. I am surprised this looks as evil to you. Can you explain why? Would it be different if it was sold to somebody else?

Here's my analysis of winners and losers.Winners:* Consumers who read Frommers books, since they're now getting travel books produced by Arthur Frommer, not Wiley + Sons, and Google didn't just kill off the lineLosers:* People who were heavy users of the Frommers sites and other social media. Congrats, Google now owns all of your data and will do far worse things with it than Wiley did.* Google. Seriously, this looks like a super douchey move. It's like the GOOG 411 service that existed only to get voice samples from millions of users.

The moral of the story is that we all have to be careful how much information we give out wherever we are. Always assume that it may eventually end up in the hands of someone you wouldn't want to have it.

At an age when most people are deep into retirement or six feet under, Arthur Frommer buys back the analog component of the company that was once his passion (for which he has remained a consultant). I hope he got a good deal, and the company can be rebuilt. Last year Wiley said they sold it because it “no longer aligned with its long-term strategies” (WSJ), which to me says “not profitable”. Frommer's daughter will no doubt be involved since they work together on other travel-related endeavors.

So google is evil because they bought the content on Wiley-owned Frommer Travel forums, or did they buy the forums to try to force the forum members into using Google+?

Should people expect to own the content they post on a public forum when the forum user agreement (most likely) states the opposite? I do not expect to retain ownership of comments I write on forums and message boards that are owned by corporations. Do you?

I think some people are misreading what the story says. Arthur Frommer is a third party to the original deal between Google and John Wiley & Sons. Arthur Frommer re-enters the picture & assumes control of his namesake brand because of Google's sale.

1) Arthur Frommer starts writing guidebooks in the 1950s.2) Arthur Frommer initially sells the travel guide business to Simon & Schuster in 1977.3) The travel guide business is sold various times — ending up at John Wiley & Sons in 2001.4) Google buys the travel guide business from Wiley in 2012.5) After announcing it would cease publishing print editions of the travel guides, Google sells the name back to its originator (Arthur Frommer) for an undisclosed amount.

Arthur Frommer hasn't owned his namesake travel guide business for about 36 years. It would be akin to Google buying Turner Broadcasting from Time Warner and then selling the name back to Ted Turner (who originally sold his company to Time Warner in 1996).

Some of the previous comments seem to oversimplify what's apparently happening. Also, the headline muddies the situation by merely stating that Google is selling the name back. It may have led many to assume Google is selling the name back to the immediate seller (Wiley) instead of back to the creator (Arthur Frommer).

I know it's easy to knock Google for handling the transaction the way it did. However, selling the name back to the originator to keep the print editions alive is probably one of the better outcomes. Sure, Google could've tried to keep publishing print editions by itself, but what could've happened when the company inevitably realized they weren't cut out for the print publishing business (or that it wasn't one of their core strengths)?

Google could have simply ceased publishing the print editions after reaping the data from the Frommers guides. This seems better.

Thank you for this. I was wondering how it was paradoxical that Google would sell a component of the business away - especially back to the founder of said business, allowing for the side benefit of continued print editions - and you saved me some investigative clicks.

So google is evil because they bought the content on Wiley-owned Frommer Travel forums, or did they buy the forums to try to force the forum members into using Google+?

Should people expect to own the content they post on a public forum when the forum user agreement (most likely) states the opposite? I do not expect to retain ownership of comments I write on forums and message boards that are owned by corporations. Do you?

No, but I don't expect that I will have my Twitter account signed up for a different and competing brand's Twitter feed. Which is what happened to the users. Not sure if the same also happened to Google+ circles and all of that.

I think some people are misreading what the story says. Arthur Frommer is a third party to the original deal between Google and John Wiley & Sons. Arthur Frommer re-enters the picture & assumes control of his namesake brand because of Google's sale.

1) Arthur Frommer starts writing guidebooks in the 1950s.2) Arthur Frommer initially sells the travel guide business to Simon & Schuster in 1977.3) The travel guide business is sold various times — ending up at John Wiley & Sons in 2001.4) Google buys the travel guide business from Wiley in 2012.5) After announcing it would cease publishing print editions of the travel guides, Google sells the name back to its originator (Arthur Frommer) for an undisclosed amount.

Arthur Frommer hasn't owned his namesake travel guide business for about 36 years. It would be akin to Google buying Turner Broadcasting from Time Warner and then selling the name back to Ted Turner (who originally sold his company to Time Warner in 1996).

Some of the previous comments seem to oversimplify what's apparently happening. Also, the headline muddies the situation by merely stating that Google is selling the name back. It may have led many to assume Google is selling the name back to the immediate seller (Wiley) instead of back to the creator (Arthur Frommer).

I know it's easy to knock Google for handling the transaction the way it did. However, selling the name back to the originator to keep the print editions alive is probably one of the better outcomes. Sure, Google could've tried to keep publishing print editions by itself, but what could've happened when the company inevitably realized they weren't cut out for the print publishing business (or that it wasn't one of their core strengths)?

Google could have simply ceased publishing the print editions after reaping the data from the Frommers guides. This seems better.

Thank you for this. I was wondering how it was paradoxical that Google would sell a component of the business away - especially back to the founder of said business, allowing for the side benefit of continued print editions - and you saved me some investigative clicks.

This is a pretty shallow article.

Yeah, he posted some good info. It's sad the that overall tone of the article is saying something that is completely opposite of this.